Supreme Court Rules for White Firefighters in Affirmative Action case

[Frodo]

Justices Rule for White Firefighters in Bias Case

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: June 29, 2009

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court has ruled that white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., were unfairly denied promotions because of their race, reversing a decision that high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor endorsed as an appeals court judge.

New Haven was wrong to scrap a promotion exam because no African-Americans and only two Hispanic firefighters were likely to be made lieutenants or captains based on the results, the court said Monday in a 5-4 decision. The city said that it had acted to avoid a lawsuit from minorities.

The ruling could alter employment practices nationwide, potentially limiting the circumstances in which employers can be held liable for decisions when there is no evidence of intentional discrimination against minorities.

"Fear of litigation alone cannot justify an employer's reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions," Justice Anthony Kennedy said in his opinion for the court. He was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

In dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the white firefighters "understandably attract this court's sympathy. But they had no vested right to promotion. Nor have other persons received promotions in preference to them."

Justices Stephen Breyer, David Souter and John Paul Stevens signed onto Ginsburg's dissent, which she read aloud in court Monday.

[Sam Spade]

Told ya.  Kennedy is pretty consistent on this issue.

Just as important - the Court is rehearing the Hillary movie case to decide whether Austin v. Michigan should be overruled.

Considering 5 of the 9 justices have already questioned that opinion...

[A18]

McConnell v. FEC's holding with respect to BCRA §203's facial validity is also at stake. Which is music to my ears.

That said, I'm not ready to make predictions.

[CARLHAYDEN]

The decision came down as expected.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

The correct decision was made.

[angus]

The ruling could alter employment practices nationwide, potentially limiting the circumstances in which employers can be held liable for decisions when there is no evidence of intentional discrimination against minorities.

and potentially encouraging even more frivolous lawsuits.  Now, anyone who has his or her employment exam rejected for any reason can (and likely will be advised to) sue.

If the only possible outcomes were to side with Ricci et al. or to side with DiStefano et al., I'd be satisfied with this outcome, because I think that the New Haven fire department was unfair.  More to the point, I think broke the spirit, if not the letter, of the law.  But the court had the option to remand the case back to appellate courts, and that would likely have caused fewer problems in the future.

Three wrongs don't make a right:  the fact that New Haven has a history of racism doesn't justify throwing out the results of the exam; the fact that they threw out the results doesn't justify a cursory and split ruling in favor of the plaintiffs. 

Possible silver lining:  the media scrutiny encourage such skewed questioning of Sotomayor that she is prevented from joining the US Supreme Court.  Okay, that's cynical.  And maybe unlikely, but I am trying to look on the bright side.

[angus]

Interesting sidenote.  From today's WaPo on-line.  The story is written by Jerry Markon and Paul Kane.  Here's an excerpt:

"The high court yesterday narrowly reversed the appellate court decision, ruling 5-4 in favor of the white firefighters who sued New Haven.  It was the fourth time the Supreme Court has overturned Sotomayor; it has upheld her decisions three times.  Experts say the court customarily reverses three-quarters of the cases it reviews. "

So the supreme court has only overturned 4/7 of her decisions.  This is a smaller fraction than 3/4, suggesting that she has a better record, if judged only by how often the higher court agrees with her, than the average justice.

It's still not clear to me what the implications of the decision will be.  Some articles say it places restrictions on what employers may do when considering race in hiring and promotion decisions.  Other articles say it means that efforts to end discrimination against one group will no longer lead to actual discrimination against another.  Yet others say we're reading far too much into this case.  It was simply a matter of a group of firemen who felt that they were wronged, and it turned out that they were, and now the matter will be righted, but that other situations, unless strikingly similar (and outside police and fire departments this is unlikely to be the case), won't be affected.

[Vepres]

It's still not clear to me what the implications of the decision will be.  Some articles say it places restrictions on what employers may do when considering race in hiring and promotion decisions.  Other articles say it means that efforts to end discrimination against one group will no longer lead to actual discrimination against another.  Yet others say we're reading far too much into this case.  It was simply a matter of a group of firemen who felt that they were wronged, and it turned out that they were, and now the matter will be righted, but that other situations, unless strikingly similar (and outside police and fire departments this is unlikely to be the case), won't be affected.

All I can see is that you cannot discriminate against whites to make up for past discrimination against blacks. This is now the legal precedent.

[Earth]

The correct decision was made.

I agree.

[Magic 8-Ball]

Good.